So says Devin Faraci, who interviewed Sam Elliot and the director. That would put it right below Spider-Man 3/Pirates 3 as the third most expensive movie ever, a record that's changing at a really alarming rate these days. So what are the odds this thing makes that back domestically? More importantly, what do you guys think needs to happen for New Line to move forward with installments 2 and 3?

$250m is way too high for a film like this. It certainly wont make that much domestically - but should top $350-$400m worldwide. Its saving grace is that it has better potential overseas than National Treasure which will be the domestic champ.

But $250m is way too risky. It will pay off in the long run - but ROI wont be anthing to shout about. Infact theres a very good chance it wont break even theatrically. Its an odd (perhaps desperate) business decsion. You spend $250m on mega $800m+ franchises - not untested first films. Didnt the whole LOTR trilogy cost that much in total?

I guess they better hope for atleast $200m domestically in order for it to make business sense to spend another $200m+ on each sequel.

I think $150m+ will guarantee the sequels are made (with a reduced budget or back to back).

$100-$150m will probably result in a sequel but at a much lower budget. Huge OS BO will help offcourse.

Under $100m would mean no seauel unless its huge overseas and/or DVD sales are strong.

1. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)2. The Skeleton Twins3. Whiplash4. Boyhood5. Under the Skin6. A Most Violent Year7. Gone Girl8. The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them9. Into the Woods10. Wish I Was Here

I guess the major late changes they made added some of that extra money.

BTW, they have already finished the first 15-20 minutes or so for the next film... Those were supposed to be at the end of this film. So maybe they will be able to make the next film cheaper, if this does well.

Anyway, this film has CGI animals in practically every scene, usually several of them. So that must have a cost a lot of money.

Not according to Newsweekhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/72020Newsweek is more reliable than Chud if they say its 150 its 150. This article also came out this week so it is very reliable.

contamination

250m fo sho

_________________

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:29 pm

lesterg

Iron Man

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:40 amPosts: 685

Re: The Golden Compass cost 250 million!?!

Jedi Master Carr wrote:

Not according to Newsweekhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/72020Newsweek is more reliable than Chud if they say its 150 its 150. This article also came out this week so it is very reliable.

Newsweek is more reliable than Chris Weitz?

_________________

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:35 pm

Jedi Master Carr

Extraordinary

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:51 pmPosts: 10766

Re: The Golden Compass cost 250 million!?!

Weitz is just the director he could have mispoke. Newsweek got their info from the horses mouth the New Line accounting office. As I said this is the same case as when Mike Newel told Dark Horizons that Goblet of Fire cost 300 milllion and David Heyman turned around and told Entertainment weekly a few months later that it cost 150.

Weitz is just the director he could have mispoke. Newsweek got their info from the horses mouth the New Line accounting office. As I said this is the same case as when Mike Newel told Dark Horizons that Goblet of Fire cost 300 milllion and David Heyman turned around and told Entertainment weekly a few months later that it cost 150.

I'd trust the director over an accounting office any day.

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:44 pm

Jedi Master Carr

Extraordinary

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:51 pmPosts: 10766

Re: The Golden Compass cost 250 million!?!

Snrub wrote:

Jedi Master Carr wrote:

Weitz is just the director he could have mispoke. Newsweek got their info from the horses mouth the New Line accounting office. As I said this is the same case as when Mike Newel told Dark Horizons that Goblet of Fire cost 300 milllion and David Heyman turned around and told Entertainment weekly a few months later that it cost 150.

I'd trust the director over an accounting office any day.

So you think Mike Newel was telling the truth back in 2005?

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:45 pm

lesterg

Iron Man

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:40 amPosts: 685

Re: The Golden Compass cost 250 million!?!

Jedi Master Carr wrote:

Weitz is just the director he could have mispoke. Newsweek got their info from the horses mouth the New Line accounting office. As I said this is the same case as when Mike Newel told Dark Horizons that Goblet of Fire cost 300 milllion and David Heyman turned around and told Entertainment weekly a few months later that it cost 150.

Weitz is just the director he could have mispoke. Newsweek got their info from the horses mouth the New Line accounting office. As I said this is the same case as when Mike Newel told Dark Horizons that Goblet of Fire cost 300 milllion and David Heyman turned around and told Entertainment weekly a few months later that it cost 150.

If anything they would want to do the opposite so they could say they lost money not made more money. So I guess WB is lying about the budget for the last two Potter films.

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:02 pm

MovieDude

Where will you be?

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 amPosts: 11537

Re: The Golden Compass cost 250 million!?!

Jedi Master Carr wrote:

Weitz is just the director he could have mispoke. Newsweek got their info from the horses mouth the New Line accounting office. As I said this is the same case as when Mike Newel told Dark Horizons that Goblet of Fire cost 300 milllion and David Heyman turned around and told Entertainment weekly a few months later that it cost 150.

"Today I sat down with Golden Compass director Chris Weitz and actor Sam Elliott, and they both disproved the rumors I had heard about the film's budget hitting 220 million dollars. They said it was 250 million. That's 70 million more than the 180 million New Line has been claiming, which was apparently the original budget; the cost soared in post-production. Weitz said that the biggest factor was how expensive visual effects have become. "I don't have my own effects house like Peter Jackson does!" he joked. The film is rich in CGI; every human character has a computer generated animal companion. And then there are the computer generated armored polar bears, who are also major characters. On top of that, Elliott said that there had been additional shooting as recently as a month ago (I imagine this was to fix the ending of the film. Weitz originally remained faithful to the book, which has an exceptionally dark ending. Finding that people weren't that happy with the ending - he said they were confused - he decided to clip the story short and end on a high note of victory. The ending has been shot, and he is adamant that the footage will open the second film, should one happen), and that sort of last minute work will definitely throw a wrench into your budget calculations."

At least read the article before you try and say that fucking Newsweek's brief mention supercedes the director's own words. He didn't mispeak, this isn't like Newell where the total cost was in the wrong currency.

I don't find it impossible to believe at all, considering after the first Harry Potter they had already done many of the visual effects before and only had to tune them up. Not to mention all the actors were on multiple film salaries. They probably didn't even have to rebuild many sets, that's why those films are so relatively inexpensive. There's plenty of good reasons why this could have had an enormous budget, not the least of which is Weitz himself. I think a director who has no experience with special effects who has a very long leash could easily overspend money on what a studio believes in going to be their new franchise.

Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:53 pm

Shack

I will eat your brain

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 amPosts: 26039Location: Jasper, AB

Re: The Golden Compass cost 250 million!?!

I would normally be "MMM, 250 million on screen" like BJ, but yeah, the latest trailer looked like Narnia wannabe garbage. The CGI looked kind of bad to be honest.

I don't trust internet budgets.That said, the last picture people were outraged by the size of the budget for without previous film franchising to support it but with very popular source material was Titanic.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum